From: Josh Cheek Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby Subject: Re: canonical/syntax-diagrams representation. Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 07:34:46 -0500 Organization: Service de news de lacave.net Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <89280a1ffc0d0e79f6d550c5a42fac25@ruby-forum.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: bristol.highgroove.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Trace: talisker.lacave.net 1305894906 65033 65.111.164.187 (20 May 2011 12:35:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@lacave.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 12:35:06 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <89280a1ffc0d0e79f6d550c5a42fac25@ruby-forum.com> X-Received-From: This message has been automatically forwarded from the ruby-talk mailing list by a gateway at comp.lang.ruby. If it is SPAM, it did not originate at comp.lang.ruby. Please report the original sender, and not us. Thanks! For more details about this gateway, please visit: http://blog.grayproductions.net/categories/the_gateway X-Mail-Count: 383514 X-Ml-Name: ruby-talk X-Gateway-Modified: [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] X-Rubymirror: Yes X-Ruby-Talk: Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!feed.ac-versailles.fr!talisker.lacave.net!lacave.net!not-for-mail Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.ruby:4809 [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Brian Candler wrote: > > Otherwise, I guess ruby is not the language for you. For those who need > to write programs using formal methods or safety-critical systems I'd > say it's definitely not. But many of us use it because ruby helps us > write useful applications quickly and enjoyably. > > > Why is not suitable for safety-critical systems?